In Contexttag:lynncontext.com,2008-05-28://12015-01-09T18:48:11Z:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
con-text (kon'tekst) n. 1. the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specified word or passage and can influence its meaning or effect. 2. the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event or situation
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Movable Type Pro 4.31-enMisguided apologeticstag:lynncontext.com,2015://1.24252015-01-09T18:25:06Z2015-01-09T18:48:11ZSadly, it would appear that Rob Rogers is the one who hasn't "read the manual." Charlie Hebdo Written by Rob Rogers on Friday, 09 January 2015 12:00 am. The most baffling thing about the gruesome massacre in Paris is that...Lynn B.

The most baffling thing about the gruesome massacre in Paris is
that these radical extremists claim to be massacring innocents in the
name of religion. They clearly have not read the manual.

]]>
Dersh blows it, big timetag:lynncontext.com,2014://1.24232014-06-11T02:58:14Z2014-06-11T04:04:07ZAt the Herzliya Conference, no less. Per Ha'aretz: Dershowitz said he feared that the boycott movement had become so entrenched that even if Israelis and Palestinians were to strike a peace deal, its supporters would not back down. "I do...Lynn B.
the Herzliya Conference, no less.

Dershowitz said he feared that the boycott movement had become so entrenched that even if Israelis and Palestinians were to strike a peace deal, its supporters would not
back down.

"I do think that a combination of factors - the occupation, the settlements - were the cause of it, but the BDS movement now questions the legitimacy of Israel's very existence," he said. "My great fear is that tomorrow, if Israel were to end most of the settlements and make peace, the BDS movement might be weakened a little bit in some parts of the United States. But I don't think it would have any impact in Europe. I don't think it would have any impact on the hard hard left. I think that they have become so wedded to Israel's demonization and delegitimization that nothing Israel does can change that effectively today."

For an extremely intelligent
man, this guy has an amazing penchant for shooting himself in the foot and his allies in the
back.Seriously."The
occupation, the settlements - were the cause of it?"Of course he's dead right about the rest but
his fixation on "occupation" and "settlements" is truly pathological. Let's focus for just a sec on the original "mission statement" of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement:

1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall
2. Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and
3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian
refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN
resolution 194.

There's no disputing what "all Arab lands" refers to. It's every inch of ground between the (Jordan) river and the (Mediterranean) sea, a battle cry echoed in many a BDS demonstration.

For reasons unknown but widely debated and disputed within the BDS community, it appears that in some quarters the first element of that mission statement has been revised in the past two years to refer only to "Arab lands occupied in June 1967. But many BDS factions, including their prime campus column, "Students for Justice in Palestine") continue as of today to cite the original formula (e.g., http://sjpvassar.wordpress.com/about/).

The question remains ... if it's "the occupation, the settlements [stupid]," that were the "cause" of the BDS movement, why did it take that movement more than ten years from its founding (at the infamous 2001 Durban "Conference Against Racism") to figure that out? And why do its goals and rhetoric continue to demonize and dehumanize all of Israel, within any borders, on any land at all?

]]>
J Street deniedtag:lynncontext.com,2014://1.24222014-04-30T23:42:05Z2014-04-30T23:46:31ZThis news is good enough to drag me out of semi-retirement.BREAKING: J Street Rejected by American Jewish Umbrella Group in 'Big Tent' Litmus TestApril 30, 2014 6:23 pmJNS.org - In what many observers will see as the de facto expression...Lynn B.
This news is good enough to drag me out of semi-retirement.

JNS.org
- In what many observers will see as the de facto expression of
mainstream U.S. Jewry's outlook on J Street, the membership of the
Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations on
Wednesday voted 22-17 (with three abstentions) to reject the
membership application of the self-labeled "pro-Israel, pro-peace"
lobby.

The 42 Conference members in attendance in New York--nine were
absent--exceeded the quorum of 38 needed to hold the vote. J Street
needed a two-thirds affirmative vote to gain membership.

Apparently in expectation that the vote would go in J Street's favor, Jonathan Tobin wrote earlier today:

Were J Street to be denied entry to the Conference it would, however, be
a huge public-relations coup and allow it to milk the situation for
sympathy and depict its critics as seeking to silence a voice for peace.
But its potential entry into the Conference would be confirmation that
rather than a significant force on the Jewish scene, J Street is just
one more insignificant Jewish group among a welter of such organizations
whose infrastructure consist of little more than a staff and a mailing
list.

I would respectfully disagree. ZOA President Mort Klein put it well: an umbrella group can have a large tent, but that does not mean a universal tent.

And, wow! I really have been a slouch.
]]>
Barry Rubin z"ltag:lynncontext.com,2014://1.24212014-02-04T04:41:13Z2014-02-04T05:01:08Z Learning from Barry Rubin, A Lifelong Teacher'Jerusalem Post' columnist Barry Rubin diesBarry Rubin: Conscience of the White CityDr. Barry Rubin dead at 64Only a few of the many tributes paid and yet to come.A tremendous loss....Lynn B.

]]>
The "new" Arab Peace Initiativetag:lynncontext.com,2013://1.24192013-05-01T19:26:52Z2013-05-01T19:26:29ZBarry Rubin asks:... [T]here is a curious lack of mention over the demand, enshrined in the previous "Arab Peace Initiative," about what is called the "right of return." Namely, to satisfy PA demands Israel would have to accept the immigration...Lynn B.
Barry Rubin asks:

... [T]here is a curious lack of mention over the demand, enshrined in the previous "Arab Peace Initiative," about what is called the "right of return." Namely, to satisfy PA demands Israel would have to accept the immigration of hundreds of thousands of passionately anti-Israel Palestinians who had lived in the country 60 years ago (or their descendants) and who have been fighting all that time to wipe Israel off the map.

Is the "right of return" as a condition for making peace still in the small print? I don't see that anyone else has asked that rather important question. Presumably it is still there. Consequently, what is in fact a suicidal offer to Israel is made, by selective reporting, to make it sound like an attractive offer. But if the demand for a massive immigration of hostile Palestinians is indeed dropped that in fact is the real news. Of course, the PA would passionately denounce such a step and since it has said nothing on the point one might assume that this demand still stands.

Really important question and the first one that came to mind when I saw the announcement of this old "new" proposal. But Rubin raises a lot of other questions, too, that make this one seem almost a moot point. Read it all.

TIAA-CREF officials are asking the SEC to allow it to take no action on a shareholder proposal by activist group Jewish Voice for Peace that would require it to consider divesting from companies that contribute to violations of human rights, including companies whose business supports Israel's occupation of the West Bank.

Jewish Voice of Peace filed a shareholder proposal with the College Retirement Equities Fund on Feb. 8 that was signed by 200 investors, requesting that shareholders be allowed to vote on the issue at CREF's July annual meeting. The date and location of the meeting have not yet been set.

CREF officials in a March letter to the Securities and Exchange Commission requested that they be allowed to take no action on the proposal, said a company source, who asked for anonymity.

The SEC has not yet responded. In 2011, the SEC responded favorably to a similar request by TIAA-CREF for permission to take no action on an earlier divestment resolution put forward by JV4P. But the "peace"-bots think they have that licked this time.

Sydney Levy, a spokesman for Jewish Voice for Peace, said the shareholder proposal was rewritten this year not to require divesture of a specific company.

Attorney Nitsana Darshan-Leitner of the Israel Law Center said in an interview that the Jewish Voice for Peace resolution was "anti-Semitic" and "anti-Israel."

Ms. Darshan-Leitner said her organization would sue TIAA-CREF if the shareholder proposal was enacted to ensure the enforcement of state and federal anti-discrimination and anti-boycott laws and to ensure that Israeli companies and businesses are not harmed.

I'm not sure how helpful this approach is, given that it appears TIAA-CREF is and has been making every effort to stop these offensive attempts to subvert their shareholder meetings to the nefarious purposes of the BDS crowd. But their overall message is an important and effective one.

More on this BDS offensive and the response of the Israel Law Center (Shurat HaDin) here, and here.

]]>
Top five reasons to confirm Hageltag:lynncontext.com,2013://1.24162013-02-25T20:11:00Z2013-02-25T20:12:07ZLynn B.
In the spirit of the day after Purim (or in some places, the day of) ...

Here are my top five reasons why Chuck Hagel should be confirmed as Secretary of Defense by the U.S. Senate:

#5 Military experience!!!!!

#4 What Obama wants, Obama gets. Or else.

#3 He'll keep those uppity neocons Jews in their place.

#2 What difference at this point does it make if Iran gets the bomb?

And the #1 reason ...

... Every country needs a SecDef who perpetually looks like he's just been dragged out of bed after a long night of heavy partying.

Some worshipers outside the Dome of the Rock, with its now white-capped golden dome, built a replica of an artillery rocket. At Damsacus Gate, I witnessed a fairly vicious gang of Palestinian youths hurling snowballs at passersby.

They pelted a young ultra-Orthodox boy, maybe 13 years old, with real violence, hitting him so hard he fell and lost his hat. Then they set on him, smashing him with snow, then with their fists. He eventually managed to get away. There were no police or border patrol officers to be seen.

Police arrested nine Arabs from east Jerusalem over the past week in connection with a snowball attack against two haredim during the snowstorm a week and a half ago.

[ ... ]

But the innocent snowball fight got out of hand when two haredim tried to leave Damascus Gate and were accosted by approximately 20 Arabs. The Arabs threw snowballs at them from less than a meter away and tried to steal one of their hats, while shouting obscenities.

A video taken of the incident went viral on Facebook with tens of thousands of people expressing disgust.

On Wednesday, police arrested three suspects and on Sunday night arrested six people from the Old City in connection with the attack. Both minors and adults were taken into custody.

]]>
CNN bias? Nah ...tag:lynncontext.com,2012://1.24122012-11-19T20:33:55Z2012-11-19T20:42:46ZIn a truly nauseating segment this morning, filled with much dithering and hand wringing over the suffering of the people of Gaza, CNN's Carol Costello announced opined:Gaza has basically been under siege by Israel for the past several years. Israel...Lynn B.
CNN's Carol Costello announced opined:

Gaza has basically been under siege by Israel for the past several
years. Israel controls the goods that come in to Gaza, come out of
Gaza. So, I'm just curious, where does Hamas get most of its weapons?

Is she kidding? Does Carol Costello know what a siege is? Apparently not.

Here is a typical monthly report from Israel's COGAT (Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories), summarizing its civil and humanitarian activity in the Gaza Strip for January, 2011. These detailed reports go back to early 2009 and beyond. Does that sound like a "siege?"

Israel is making a major effort to maintain the fabric of civilian life in Gaza, despite the situation of current hostilities.

Crossings

1. Israel is making a major effort to maintain the fabric of
civilian life in Gaza, despite the situation of current hostilities. The IDF
today (18 Nov) opened the Keren Shalom crossing for movement of food,
medicine and other goods from Israel despite the ongoing rocket attacks on
the Israeli population and previous attacks on the crossing.

2. The
Erez crossing was open today, as on every other day of Operation Pillar of
Defense. Seventy foreign journalists entered Gaza today by way of Erez.
Twenty Gazans entered Israel for medical treatment, and twenty-three foreign
nationals, representing NGOs who until now had been prevented by Hamas from
leaving the Gaza Strip, departed.

Food and Housing Security

1. Gaza is not experiencing food scarcity.
Israel is not blocking entrance of goods into Gaza, except for weaponry and
dual-use materials. Construction materials can be imported to Gaza under the
supervision of international organizations.

2. Israel is continuing
the yearly supply of five million cubic meters (1,320,860,250 gallons) of
water to Gaza, despite the rocket attacks on Israeli cities and
towns.

3. UNRWA (UN Relief and Works Agency) reports (17 Nov 2012) that
despite some displacement of families due to hostilities, "there hasn't been
any need to provide emergency humanitarian assistance or to open UNRWA
facilities as emergency shelters."

Medical Care

1. Between
January-October 2012, approximately 14,500 patients and their accompanying
chaperones entered Israel from Gaza for medical treatment. 99% of the
medical requests by Palestinian residents of Gaza were approved by
Israel.

2. The World Health Organization has reported a ten-day
slowdown in referral process for Gaza patients due to disagreements between
the Ramallah and Gaza Health Ministries.

4. Israel is not blocking entrance of medical supplies into
Gaza. Requests submitted by the international community are answered within
24-72 hours of submission, almost always positively, and Israel has opened
the Kerem Shalom passage for transit of medical materials and other goods,
despite the danger to personnel at the crossing.

5. At present, there
is a shortage of some medical supplies in Gaza due to disagreements between
Hamas and the PA, and budgetary difficulties of the Palestinian
Authority.

6. UNRWA reports that all of its 21 health centers are open
and functioning. Of UNRWA's 12,000 staff members in Gaza, only one person
has sustained injuries in the hostilities, and those are
minor.

Electricity

1. Israel is supplying 125 megawatts of
electricity to the Gaza Strip from the power station in Ashkelon despite the
rocket attacks on Israel's population, and on Ashkelon itself.

2.
Gaza continues to suffer from power outages due to a deliberate policy of
Hamas, which opposes import of fuel from Israel. As a result, the Gaza power
station is operating at 20% capacity.

Last but certainly not least, let's not forget Gaza's open border with Egypt, now controlled by a Hamas ally, over which Israel has no control whatsoever. That is, of course, the all too obvious answer to Ms. Costello's clueless question.

The "news" according to CNN (and other media outlets) is sounding more and more these day like a mere regurgitation of terrorist talking points.]]>
Dershowitz & Co. - pwnedtag:lynncontext.com,2012://1.24112012-09-27T20:52:04Z2012-09-27T21:03:04ZLynn B.
speech at the United Nations General Assembly, loaded with lies, false accusations and vitriol. It was, in fact, among the nastiest, least conciliatory speeches Abbas has ever made (for Western consumption, anyway). And it did not include any expression whatsoever of sensitivity to Jewish claims to the Land of Israel.

Wait. Why should that be surprising?

This past Monday, ten "Jewish leaders" met with Mahmoud Abbas in New York and tried to give away the store. The original Ha'aretz story is now locked behind its pay wall but is well summarized in this article at The Times of Israel (among other places).

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has reportedly demonstrated a willingness to restart talks with Israel, telling Jewish leaders that his UN speech on Thursday would include a greater display of sensitivity to Jewish claims to Israel.

The meeting was held under the auspices of the
Center for Middle East Peace. Top Jewish organizational leaders
declined attendance, reportedly at the request of the office of Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has discouraged Jewish meetings with
Abbas until the Palestinians leader gives up demanding a settlement
freeze as a precondition for returning to talks.

So who are these ten "leaders?" Who do they speak for? Why did they find it appropriate to snub the Israeli Prime Minister's admonition and undercut his government's declared policies and what, exactly, is the "Dershowitz formula?" Are they embarrassed to have been so badly pwned (internet slang: to be taken in, played, hoodwinked, bamboozled)?

The Times reports:

Among those in attendance were Dershowitz, the Harvard legal scholar and
a leading defender of Israel; Robert Wexler, the CMEP director and a
top Jewish surrogate for President Obama; and Peter Joseph, who heads
the Israel Policy Forum.

So that gives us a hint as to who they speak for and why they chose to attend the meeting. But the kicker is that the formula this group proposed requires a settlement freeze, not exactly as a "precondition," but as a necessary quid pro quo for returning to talks (a distinction without a significant difference).

[t]he formula states that "Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu should now offer a
conditional freeze: Israel will stop all settlement building in the West Bank as
soon as the Palestinian Authority sits down at the bargaining table, and the
freeze will continue as long as the talks continue in good faith."

The details are spelled out in this earlier Ha'aretz article (still publicly available at this time). In a nutshell, though, it proposes that Israel should offer Abbas an indefinite freeze on Jewish construction in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria as long as he can keep up the pretense of talking. Having reportedly won Abbas over, Dershowitz allegedly (again according to Ha'aretz) said he would try to sell the idea to Bibi this week. Bibi has already made his position crystal clear on settlement freezes and preconditions, in whatever guise, so good luck with that.

Meanwhile, so far no response by the ten fools to Abbas's betrayal. You can bet he'll be laughing all the way back to Ramallah. ]]>
Romney vs. Mackey's revisionist historytag:lynncontext.com,2012://1.24102012-09-25T03:21:37Z2012-09-25T03:55:18ZThe Sunday edition of DG's Mideast Media Sampler (an indispensible resource that I can't recommend highly enough) analyzed several serious flaws in Robert Mackey's obnoxiously opportunistic manipulation of the uproar over Mitt Romney's extremely reasonable assessment of the Middle East...Lynn B.
DG's Mideast Media Sampler (an indispensible resource that I can't recommend highly enough) analyzed several serious flaws in Robert Mackey's obnoxiously opportunistic manipulation of the uproar over Mitt Romney's extremely reasonable assessment of the Middle East "peace process" at that over-publicized fundraiser last spring in Boca Raton. (Yes, that sentence is unwieldy to say the least but I need to move on ...). The serious flaws being too numerous to count, however, here's yet another.

Mackey sez:

Mr. Romney's frank remarks, which undercut even Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu's public endorsement of "a solution of two states for two
peoples: a Palestinian state alongside the Jewish state," seemed to
break from decades of official American foreign policy. Since before the Oslo Accords were signed in 1993, Republican and
Democratic presidents have thrown their weight behind the effort to
secure Israel's future as a democratic state with a Jewish majority by
creating a second state for up 2.5 million Palestinians who have lived
under Israeli military rule for more than four decades.

"Decades of official American foreign policy?" For those of us who were sentient and paying attention "before the Oslo Accords," that sort of reeked of wrongness. So I took a look.

We support the creation of a democratic
Palestinian state dedicated to living in peace and security side by side
with the Jewish State of Israel. The creation of a Palestinian state
should resolve the issue of Palestinian refugees by allowing them to
settle there, rather than in Israel. Furthermore, all understand that it
is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations
will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949. And
we understand that all final status negotiations must be mutually
agreed.

If Palestinians embrace democracy and the rule of law, confront corruption, and firmly reject terror, they can count on American support for the creation of a Palestinian state.

Ok, the party platform doesn't
always reflect administration policy. But it's common knowledge that G.W. Bush, in his first term (2001-2005),
was the first president to explicitly advocate a palestinian state while in
office and then both parties' platforms rushed to catch up. Clinton's
presidential endorsement was, at best, implied, and then only ... when? I think we can trust Glenn
Kessler to put the best possible face on it.

That is because Clinton already laid the groundwork in the last months
of his presidency by trying to achieve a peace deal that would have
resulted in a Palestinian state. In a speech on Jan. 7, 2001, two weeks
before he left office, Clinton said he believed the conflict could not
be resolved without creating "a sovereign, viable Palestinian state."

Neither George H.W. Bush (POTUS 1989-1993) nor any of his Republican predecessors ever so much as hinted at acceptance let alone advocacy of palestinian statehood. W.J. Clinton (POTUS 1993-2001) danced around it and gave provisional lip service in the last weeks of his second term.

So. Does Mackey's assertion -- that since before October 1993, Republican and
Democratic presidents have thrown their weight behind the creation of a palestinian state -- hold water? It does not. It looks like Mackey got
this badly wrong. Surprise.

]]>
Bottom linetag:lynncontext.com,2012://1.24092012-09-13T06:45:09Z2012-09-13T18:46:10ZFrom Mitt Romney's press conference yesterday:ROMNEY: I spoke out when the key fact that I referred to was known, which was that the Embassy of the United States issued what appeared to be an apology for American principles. That was...Lynn B.
Mitt Romney's press conference yesterday:

ROMNEY: I spoke out when the key fact that I referred to was known,
which was that the Embassy of the United States issued what appeared to
be an apology for American principles. That was a mistake. And I believe
that when a mistake is made of that significance, you speak out.

Regardless of the timeline or what preceded or followed what, isn't that the point? ]]>
That new, improved DNC platformtag:lynncontext.com,2012://1.24082012-09-06T16:33:36Z2012-09-06T16:33:34ZAs Barry Rubin pointed out yesterday before the language about Jerusalem (and about God) was reinserted, the "Middle East" section of the Democrats' platform had two paragraphs about Israel what Obama has done for Israel and only one sentence (given...Lynn B.
Barry Rubin pointed out yesterday before the language about Jerusalem (and about God) was reinserted, the "Middle East" section of the Democrats' platform had two paragraphs about Israel what Obama has done for Israel and only one sentence (given its own paragraph) about all the Middle East countries other than Israel.

That hasn't changed. (See more from Prof. Rubin on this important point here.)

Curiously, the reinserted Jerusalem language was added back, not to the paragraphs that address Israel but rather to the end of this one (my emphasis):

Elsewhere in the region, President Obama is committed to maintaining
robust security cooperation with Gulf Cooperation Council states and our
other partners aimed at deterring aggression, checking Iran's
destabilizing activities, ensuring the free flow of commerce essential
to the global economy, and building a regional security architecture to
counter terrorism, proliferation, ballistic missiles, piracy, and other
common threats. Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel. The
parties have agreed that Jerusalem is a matter for final status
negotiations. It should remain an undivided city accessible to people of
all faiths.

At least that's the way it reads right now. This could well be just another sloppy mistake that will be "fixed" later. ]]>